Mormons Have World's Largest Database on Human Race: Why?

Originally posted by bigrex

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by bigrex

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by bigrex

 

Well here is one thing. Whole sections of Isaiah are lifted right out of the King James and set down in one of the books of Mormon. I talked this over with the missionaries at length. Their answer was that the spirit can move on anyone and if they repeat what was writen in the old text, word for word, it was just a show of Gods power ect.

Of course he attempted to preserve the original English but made commentary and adjusted phrases so they made more theological sense. Things such as "lead us not into temptation" changed to "suffer us not to be led into temptation". Joseph Smith had three years of formal schooling.

Here is the problem with "suffer" as he used it. We can see what he is saying. Dont suffer or allow or let or permit us to go into temptation.

The problem is that there are several greek words for suffer.....but none of these words was used here (Matt 16:13 or Luke 11:4). The greek word there is εἰσφέρω eispherō used only 7 times in the greek NT and it has a very confined meaning....to lead into or bring into like taking hold of something and leading it like say a horse or a man by the arm. Thats why the KJv translaters used "lead" for eisphero and both matthew and Luke were carefull to use it. Had they wanted to say allow they would have use any one of several words that mean allow.

The word suffer as used in the greek KJV mean to allow, permit, grant as in "suffer me first to go bury my father" or "suffer us to go into the pigs".

edit on 28-12-2010 by Logarock because: sp

Keep in mind the word "lead" is used in it's past tense "led", so don't think that it was removed, it is there, again the Joseph Smith version of the New Testament is more about clarifying or revising than retransmitting an ancient text in a new language. He was not working from a manuscript on this "translation" so it was not literally a translation but rather an exercise in revelation, whether you believe in that kind of thing or not. Again, his job was to clarify an ancient text which could be misconstrued in a modern language context, perhaps past recopying of manuscripts could also muddy things to some extent.

edit on 28-12-2010 by bigrex because: (no reason given)

Its not past tence. If it were the tence of "deliver" would also change. As it is the word lead here is a compound word...eis-into and pherō to carry= carry into....like being moved by a stream...it is not to "suffer" i.e. to allow, consent ect. The action is on the part of the carrier.

If it were past tence it would read " but lead us not into temptation and delivered us from evil" Deliver here is an imperative as in "do deliver us please" not "he has deliverd us" in the past tence. It is not past tence. The whole line is imperative.

Even if the first word "suffer' were correct and in a past tence of lead it would read "And (he) suffered us not to go into temptation but delivered us from evil".....but thats not what it says by any reconing.

A transliteration would be "into temptation carry us not" or "into temptation not carry us" or "us carry into temptation not"

And I see you have no problem pointing to the greek as the point of the corruption

Smith was a hacker who really had zero respect for scripture and was indeed a man that muddied up scripture.

()"lead"=εἰσφέρω- aorist active subjunctive) But notice that there is NO past time indicated by the aorist tenses. συν-έλθ-ῃ anticipates some hypothetical future time. (εἰσ-φέρω our word in question notes in the now and beyond in future now, at anytime current)
εἰσ-έλθ-ωσιν describes an entry that takes place in the time framed by the speaking in languages.

Only in the indicative mood is absolute time indicated by tense. And even there, as previously noted, the fundamental idea of tense is kind of action, not time of action. Upon leaving the indicative mood, we enter a world where time of action, if indicated at all, is only relative to the main verb.

Remember that the present system (including both the present tense and the imperfect tense) is used when the speaker wishes to indicate progressive or ongoing action. The aorist tense is used when the speaker does not wish to indicate ongoing action. Of course, as previously noted, this doesn't mean the action was not ongoing. It simply means the speaker does not call attention to the ongoing nature of the action, whether or not the action was ongoing. This distinction between the present tense and the aorist tense will hold true in the subjunctive mood. And in independent clauses, this will be the only difference between a present subjunctive and an aorist subjunctive. There will be no difference indicated in the time of the action.

Tense

Interesting indeed.

let's see. Was the Mormon Bible/Book made from gold or something similar?
Do they have a cave or mountain vault containing all our DNA or something similar?
Is it possible that the Ark was a vessel containing all the DNA for all the fauna and flora on the earth at the time and that the Bible story of the flood and Noah was a hijacked story from the Mormons?

All the above seem to be ways of keeping information alive for thousands of years.

I wonder if the Mormons are also compiling data and analysis of the information in the data base in order to make conclusions concerning the evolution and changes in genetics through time.

According to old scriptures, humans lived just short of a thousand years. Yet it seems in spite of such longevity that there must have been something different genetically in the capability to reproduce. For instance, Noah lived 950 years and yet only had three children.

Though humans lived shorter lives after the flood, there still seemed to be some problem with fertility, as some bible stories like Abraham and Sarah illustrate.

Could fertility issues have been the reason for polygamy?

Is polygamy an issue of genetic philosophy?

Also, I wonder if this collection of information in the database is being studied for unusual genetic occurrences and whether early interbreeding strengthened the lines or caused deviations or odd behavior?

Are the LDS partnering with any pharmaceutical/medical/scientific industries in using this data base to study illnesses brought on by certain genetic factors or disease resistance in certain family lines?

Are the LDS partnering with any financial institutions in keeping track of stock splits on humans who are unknowingly still paying the ancestral debts to slave owners and financiers?

Originally posted by Logarock
And I see you have no problem pointing to the greek as the point of the corruption

I will go as far to say I have no problem saying God is not an agent of temptation and does not lead us into temptation.

Back on topic, one can see videos which tell all about the storage in the mountain, you can see in such videos that it is just an area for storing and cataloging a very large number of microfilm. Maybe there is a small chance some food storage preparations are stored in back, but I rather doubt it, let me see if I can find a link on youtube to a video. I know I saw one years ago.

Here you go:
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

LDS take it so seriously because we believe the work of conversion and helping to convert or do ordinances for ancestors (turning our hearts to our ancestors and being bound together and saved as an eternal family) is THE purpose of the creation of this earth, period.

reply to post by dontreally


As a inactive member of the Mormon church I find these comments and some of the comments in this forum to be accurate. We do baptism for the dead and beilive that they can reject or accept the baptism in there name. As someone already posted we believe in three degrees of heaven- Telestrial, Terrestrial, and Celestial kingdoms. We believe in an outer darkness but only the fallen angels and sons of perdition go there. We believe that there was a war in heaven in which 1/3rd of people followed Satan and were cast out of the kingdom of heaven but the other 2/3rd chose to have a mortal body and come to the earth to try to attain the Celestial kingdom.

I am very familiar with Emanuel Swedenburg and have fund that it is likely that Joseph Smith agreed on much of the philosophy of Emanuel and placed it in the Mormon philosophy.

As far as the immaculate and abundant records of genealogy that Mormons keep It is for the purpose of baptisms for the dead and also for patriarchate blessings and because we believe that families are eternal and so it is important for all of these actions.

reply to post by shamaniski


Thank you. I agree with your post. I was Mormon for only 5 years. My husband who was born and raised taught me all this stuff but I don't remember it in detail. I do recognize it when someone else states it.

I really enjoyed being Mormon. It is a great way to live - - LOL - ya don't just go to church once a week - - its a life. But it is Patriarchal and too fundamental for me - - plus their current involvement in politics.

I don't know why some think everything is a conspiracy.

If you enjoyed being a mormon then wy do you not consider yourself a member anymore? you dont have to answer if you dont want to I'm just kinda curious.

Originally posted by shamaniski
If you enjoyed being a mormon then wy do you not consider yourself a member anymore? you dont have to answer if you dont want to I'm just kinda curious.

As a feminist - - it just didn't work for me. Even though I know Mormons highly value education and achievement for both sexes. However - they still see women in a more traditional role.

My hubby wanted to give it a shot. It was OK until we switched wards to a smaller town. There were issues with a new bishop. He actually lost about a third of his congregation so it wasn't just us. Yet they allowed him to stay in the position for 5 years. Their reasoning - - it was something HE needed.

With Mormons political involvement in Prop 8 - - hubby officially resigned from the church. I followed. I'm really more of an Atheist anyway.

It's a pretty racist religion...so not really surprised if this were true.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
It's a pretty racist religion...so not really surprised if this were true.

I did not find it racist at all. It does come off that way on the surface - - with their projection of smiling healthy white people.

But in reality - - did not find it to be racist.

It might be more so in some areas - - where the area tends to be racist.

Was it at one time? No more then other churches - - as society itself was racist.

One of the largest Mormon ethnic groups is Samoan.

------------------------------------------------------

I know - - not a discussion of the religion.

Still don't think there is anything sinister about the genealogy files.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by MrXYZ
It's a pretty racist religion...so not really surprised if this were true.

I did not find it racist at all. It does come off that way on the surface - - with their projection of smiling healthy white people.

But in reality - - did not find it to be racist.

It might be more so in some areas - - where the area tends to be racist.

Was it at one time? No more then other churches - - as society itself was racist.

One of the largest Mormon ethnic groups is Samoan.

------------------------------------------------------

I know - - not a discussion of the religion.

Still don't think there is anything sinister about the genealogy files.

Before 1978 black people couldn't even join the church because apparently they are savages according to their religion. Of course they changed that ruling due to public pressure

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Before 1978 black people couldn't even join the church because apparently they are savages according to their religion. Of course they changed that ruling due to public pressure

That is incorrect. There were black members even before they moved to Utah. It is true they couldn't hold the Priesthood - - which has been changed.

But - really it was more standard culture in America at that time in regards to blacks. Blacks were not accepted as equal. They were not allowed in most organizations through out America. Blacks were not allowed in many (maybe even most) white Christian churches - - let alone be members.

The Mark of Ham was used in the same way Leviticus is used today in regards to gays.

Mormon scriptures clearly articulate that the curse of cain is black skin...

LINK

I'm not really sure why they want such a database, and have to admit I don't really care either way. I was in Salt Lake City and visited the temple and did the tourist tour. Never before in my life did I hear a tour guide say the word "beautiful" as often...at least once a sentence. I'll try to dig up the video, was a few years back.

Also, watch that "The book of Mormon" South Park episode...pretty much explains why people shouldn't care about what those people do

Originally posted by MrXYZ

I was Mormon for 5 years. I've also gone to many other churches in my quest: Four Square - Presbyterian - Catholic - Lutheran - Methodist - Baptist - well you get the picture.

It is the best organization I have ever been involved with. Every person is treated as equal as the next - - which I found quite phenomenal. "Do not murmur" - - was part of almost every Sunday service. Yes - as human nature there were the gossipers - - but nothing like the critical judgment I experienced in other churches. I never experienced the slightest hint of racism - - from anyone - - to anyone.

As far as Doctrine - - there are others who can be more specific in that response.

As far as your LINK - - try a legitimate Mormon site.

reply to post by Annee


Please don't think I wanna prohibit them from believing whatever they want...just like I don't want anyone else to not be able to believe in whatever they want. It's just that if you read up about Joseph Smith and the whole story it seems...I'm really struggling to find a word here that doesn't sound offensive..."not believable". If it makes mormons to be happy, I'm all for that as long as they don't bother anyone. You obviously had a good experience, so good for you.

As for bad parts of the scriptures, those obviously exist in most if not all religions. According to the bible it's ok to beat your slave if he survives another day before dying. Muslims who take the Koran literally obviously have to kill evil infidels if they refuse to convert...and don't get me started about some of the Hindu scriptures.

But in the end, as long as believers don't "mess with the rest of us" buy trying to convert us all the time, or even attacking us...it's all good and they have the RIGHT to believe whatever.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Annee

 

Please don't think I wanna prohibit them from believing whatever they want...just like I don't want anyone else to not be able to believe in whatever they want. It's just that if you read up about Joseph Smith and the whole story it seems...I'm really struggling to find a word here that doesn't sound offensive..."not believable".

I was just being straight forward like I usually am. I had the personal experience of being Mormon. They have a lot right. They truly live in a healthy way.

I think Joseph Smith was contacted. Who/what he was contacted by . . . . ?

I would say there is reality in the bible but the bible is not fact - - it is parables and hidden messages. Same goes for the Book of Mormon - in my opinion.

New religions are started all the time. Some take off - some don't.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I still see no conspiracy in the data records.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Alethea

 

No conspiracy here. One of the requirements of being a member of the Church is I understand being able to quote 5 (maybe 4) generations back of your family history. (One of my ancestors was an elder of the Church)

The LDS data is freely available on line via Family Search and many other Genealogy site have access to the data.

One of the real benefits from the point of view of research in the UK and Ireland is that the Bishops Transcripts are for the most part found in the LDS records and these are not easy to get at by other methods. If you are researching your family using LDS records be aware that there are two kinds of entry.

(1) Records submitted by LDS members. These are often correct, but can also be wildly incorrect and regrettably in some cases completely fictitious. More than one member can submit near identical records, but which differ in detail such as the exact year etc. I tend to ignore record marked thus.

(2) Records extracted from the locality. These are record from Bishops transcripts and I believe in many cases from direct parish records. These will always be accurate but don't forget that name changes and transcription errors can lead you up the wrong path. In the earlier records many names were entered as phonetic variants and this can cause some problems. In some areas (notably Gloucester in the UK) the LDS were not permitted access to the transcripts so this area is sparse on LDS records.

I am glad they keep these records in a bunker (I knew that by the way). Many of them are irreplaceable and they should be preserved so.

Quoting your family history isn't a requirement for membership. Mormons are simply encouraged to trace their family history so that certain work can be done on behalf of deceased ancestors.

reply to post by Alethea


One of the reason also why mormons are gathering genealogy is this: "In the spirit world, the gospel is “preached to those who
[have] died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or
in transgression, having rejected the prophets. These [are]
taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism
for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying
on of hands, and all other principles of the gospel that
[are] necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves
that they might be judged according to men in the
flesh, but live according to God in the spirit” (D&C 138:32–34)."

Source click Here

Seriously? I mean really, are you serious???? Please, Please do some research before throwing this kind of stuff out there. Baptisms for the dead are performed by proxy in the temples. As Members of the lds church, we believe in baptism by immersion. The same for Baptisms for the Dead. There is no creepy weirdo ritual, its the same as a regular baptism. As far as the vault goes, many old documents need to be in a dry, cool climate/ humidity controlled environment. ANYONE can make an appointment to view old family documents, diaries, ship logs etc, regardless of religious belief.......*Audible Sigh*....... Waves to all the bros and sisters in ATSland. ** edit** This was in response to an earlier post on this thread. I'm a newbie, please be gentle. couldn't figure out how to link or just clicked on the wrong thing